Iksorod and I made a Google doc of intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking. We'll keep adding to it as we find more stuff. Please comment with your own additions.
Iksorod and I made a Google doc of intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking. We'll keep adding to it as we find more stuff. Please comment with your own additions.
What about this recommendation from the here be dragons video?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
I'd recommend linking to the main Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast, as well as their "5x5" podcast (which is currently linked to). Most weeks some common fallacy or cognitive bias is mentioned (usually in connection with alternative medicine).
Because it is intro-level material. The sequences require a strong base to read/understand and a lot of endurance
The sequences require a strong base to read/understand and a lot of endurance
I won't argue with endurance, but what do you mean with "strong base"? Where in the sequences are you expected to already know something that's not part of the sequences? I've read most of it (didn't care to learn about quantum physics) and don't remember such a thing.
I don't know math, quantum mechanics or philosophy, i had to open 10-20 pages of references and google searches to follow what was going on(per individual sequence page).
It reads as though it is assumed that you are a AI graduate.
Its also strongly aimed/influenced by american culture, so some things are weird for us Europeans.
(Is there such a thing as an "AI graduate"?)
You know, while I appreciated the pop culture (and cult-classic culture) references in the Sequences while I was reading them, probably because I got almost all of them, I can definitely see the argument that they reduce accessibility for a wider audience.
I don't know math, quantum mechanics or philosophy
Perhaps I'm used to read on, even if I might miss something. I know a bit of math, and there are a few posts that benefit from that, but only a few. I don't know much philosophy either (except the sequences, of course).
i had to open 10-20 pages of references and google searches to follow what was going on(per individual sequence page).
Let's take Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in (Anticipated Experiences) as an example. What would you have to look up there? And don't say "colonial alienation" ;-). For me it might be phlogiston and elan-vital. But A) understanding those words is hardly essential for understanding the post and B) they are explained somewhere else in the sequences (I never said navigating them were easy).
Its also strongly aimed/influenced by american culture, so some things are weird for us Europeans.
I'm European and I don't really know what you mean.
i have tried the read-on thing on 2 pages and it made it even worse, so i dropped back to the opening pages tactic. That page you mention is actually one of the better ones although using examples like "Wulky Wilkinsen" and post utopianism made no sense to me. Having things explained elsewhere is a big problem imho, but i intend to devote some time to help fix that.
You may have been exposed to enough american culture by tv, movie, shows and books to not get overwhelmed by them?
using examples like "Wulky Wilkinsen" and post utopianism made no sense to me
That's sort of the point. The words "post utopianism" and "colonial alienation" don't mean anything.
You may have been exposed to enough american culture by tv, movie, shows and books to not get overwhelmed by them?
Most movies and even tv-shows that run in Germany are actually American. Books might be more of a problem, but if it's a classic like the Christmas Carole, there is a Simpsons episode about it :)
The Case of The Spelunkean Explorers, previously mentioned here in a post by cousin_it, offers a fascinating array of examples of different legal theories. Some of them are useful to think about in the context of metaethics, while others are more useful in discussing the hidden complexity of wishes.
sigh You obviously have no idea how to debate.
Your first point must ALLWAYS contain the evidence it is based on, BEFORE moving on. For example;
"Pigs can fly, flying is achieved by the length of the wing being greater on the top, creating an area of low pressure, effectively sucking the plane into the sky."
The first 3 words, were not verified in any way.
If it is indeed "the map and not the territory" as you say. Then it is the arguers fault (arguers for the proposition).
You see; debating method (all academic debating methods) require the argument is taken in turns. And if the guy has not presented any evidence at the end of the first sentence, let alone after a 15 min and part 1 of the video. Then they are going to get torn a new one, by the other team (arguers against the proposition).
“You didn't cite any[fallacies].”
I said: “generalisations, using the words 'all conspiracy theorists'”
That counts as 1 fallacy (why did you miss that?), and in debating terms, he is now 1 point down. My argument, which contains no fallacies (and you haven’t found any yet). Is still at 0. Therefore not much more analysis is needed to know he is wrong.
“The video's creator's name should be capitalized. Also, she prefers to be addressed as Miss Shirley Representing the Point.” Wat… oh I see… what a robust argument… descending into criticizing spelling errors.
“Please read the material that is the background for many on this site if you are going to try to engage with the ideas here: Map and Territory, Words”
I might… but as of yet, your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.
I’m seeing the shadow of flaws and fallacies, cast throughout this entire website, for 2 main reasons; no experience debating and actually testing the theory, and, very little experience using strict critical thinking. And above all else, TOO MANY PSYCHOLOGY THEORIES.
Psychology AND theory, bare no impact upon evidence based arguments. The evidence is either real or fake, true or false. It exists in a binary state of 1 or 0, it does not matter who is looking at it, or what state their mind is in, as evidence is independent of mind as it exists outside of it. (oh here come the thumbs-down due to biased psychologists)
Appealing to "proper" debating technique is going to be counter-productive here. We're interested in getting the right answer. Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons, which is exactly backwards from what a responsible rationalist should do.
When a bunch of smart people disagree with you, sometimes it is because they are crazy; sometimes, because you are crazy. You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively.